Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, which is consistent with an external live-odds fetch, and the description adds the key trait the annotations don't convey: this call is paid. It still doesn't say whether credits are consumed per call or how failures on an unknown question behave, so it stops short of 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One efficient sentence, front-loaded with the paid caveat before the content list. The enumeration partially duplicates what the output schema already carries, but it aids tool selection rather than padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 100% schema coverage on the one parameter and an output schema covering the returned fields, the remaining need is selection and cost context — both provided. Nothing essential for a correct invocation is missing, though the relationship to sibling market tools is left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'q' parameter is fully documented in the schema with format, limit and an example. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond 'a market question', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource ('full brief for a market question') and enumerates its contents (score, catalyst, volume trend, delta, summary, live Polymarket/Kalshi odds), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_market_sentiment and get_top_markets. It reads as a content listing rather than a crisp verb+resource, but an agent can tell what it returns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Paid (see get_pricing)' tells the agent a cost prerequisite exists and where to check it, which is genuinely useful routing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance — nothing says why an agent would pick this over get_market_sentiment or get_top_markets.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.